Slashdot Mirror


$9 Billion Loophole for Synthetic Fuel

Rondrin writes "CNN has an article detailing a $9 billion loophole in the tax code to spur synthetic fuel development. Unfortunately, spraying coal with pine tar qualifies. From the article: 'The wording is so bland and buried so deep within a 324-page budget document that almost no one would notice that a multibillion-dollar scam is going on. Not the members of Congress voting for it and certainly not the taxpayers who will get fleeced by it. And that is exactly the idea.'"

19 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Um by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My uncle was in congress when Clinton was president. He found out about the missile strikes on Afghanistan when he saw it on CNN.

    It's amazing how uninformed members of congress can be.

    --
    I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
  2. Re:Um by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 3, Funny

    324 pages? Maybe if I made $165,200 per year and got free airfare back and forth from home to work....oh...wait...

  3. Meanwhile... by misfit815 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My diesel automobile could easily run biodiesel refined from old fry grease from the McDonald's down the street if only Uncle Sam would shove Big Oil out of the way and let it be refined. Nevermind that the process could easily be done for under $1.00 a gallon. Nevermind that it doesn't depend at all on the Middle East. Nevermind that it burns cleaner than either regular diesel or gasoline. Bah.

    --
    Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
    1. Re:Meanwhile... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My diesel automobile could easily run biodiesel refined from old fry grease from the McDonald's down the street if only Uncle Sam would shove Big Oil out of the way and let it be refined.

      Never mind that you (yes, you!) can get a permit for small-scale biodiesel production.

      Also, you don't even have to refine it! Get a $795 kit from greasecar, a $1200 kit from greasel (bad idea) or a $1100 kit from Elsbett (best idea, if you have the money) and you can run on vegetable oil. You only need [bio]diesel for startup and shutdown, and if you get the Elsbett kit, you can put whatever fuel including WVO into the same tank and start up on it, too.

      Biodiesel costs about $0.25/gallon if you make it yourself. Deacidifying and dewatering average fryer oil costs about $0.05/gallon. WVO has about 85% the energy of biodiesel, so you will get less power/mileage on oil, but it's cheaper, and easier. You can, however, build a biodiesel processor for around $600.

      I have a 1981 Mercedes 300SD and plan to get the Elsbett kit, which is spoken of very highly everywhere I've seen a reference.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Meanwhile... by instarx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those numbers are bullshit...the Diesel and Gas numbers are obvious BS too. No one would ever make gasoline or diesel if it took more fossil fuel to produce than it yielded. It just wouldn't be worth it.

      You obviously haven't thought much about this. Here is a quote from the original "bullshit" article: "Petroleum diesel's life cycle yields only 0.83 units of fuel energy per unit of fossil energy consumed."

      You used this information to reach the incorrect conclusion that no one would ever do that because there would be no profit, and therefore the numbers have to be wrong. You are confusing efficiency and profit. Even though it takes more energy to get that gallon of fuel in your car than the gallon produces, you PAY more for it than it cost the oil company to get it there. Oil field to refinery to gas station to car is a very inefficent fuel delivery system, but it is a VERY efficient profit-making system.

      Before you go shouting "bullshit" next time you should think about the problem more thoroughly.

  4. Re:What's another 9 billion? by Horatio_Hellpop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ummm ... US companies have been purchasing Chinese goods for 50 years ... mostly because they can get them much cheaper, than paying dumbass union workers $45/hr to produce the same thing.

    Not the fault of the "current administration" ... not by a long shot.

    Please buy a (chinese) clue during your next shopping run at Wal-Mart.

    --
    Frammin' on the jim-jam, frippin' at the krotz!
  5. 9 Billion over three years by pizzaman100 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Note that the 9 billion dollar credit is how much they got in 3 years.

    FTA: From 2003 through 2005, TIME estimates, the synfuel industry raked in $9 billion in tax credits. That means the lucky few collectively cut their tax bills by that amount, which would be enough to cover a year's worth of federal taxes for 20 million Americans who make less than $20,000 a year and pay income taxes.

    So while this tax loophole sucks, it's $3 billion a year not $9 billion. That means it's a year's worth of taxes for 6.6 million people who make 20K, not 20 million.

    1. Re:9 Billion over three years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Phew - that's a relief, I knew there was no scam.

  6. More socialist bs by geekee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although people think of programs like welfare when they hear the term socialism, govt. incentives to help business are the same thing. You can argue that giving incentives to companies to produce technology in areas the US needs to be headed in is a good thing, but don't be surprised when the money is ill spent. Unlike in a corporation, where people are fired for wasting money, in govt. you win elections for getting tax dollars into your district, even if they are being spent on something completely non-productive.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  7. Re:Um by Politburo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless your uncle was the chair or ranking member of the Intellience Committee, there's no requirement for him to have been informed of the strikes, iirc, for obvious security reasons.

  8. Simple technical solution to many such scams by straponego · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Often sleazy little tibits like these are inserted at the last minute into a bill hundreds or thousands of pages long. When the votes are taken, nobody is even aware of the changes. Congress critters complain about having voted for something they didnt know about, but none of them seems to want to address the problem.

    So, why doesn't Congress use a revision control system? When the day comes to vote on a bill, you check for changes since the last time you read it. If there are changes, you know who made them and when. Your basic audit trail.

    I suspect that one of the reasons something like this hasn't been implemented yet is that most politicians are habitual defectors rather than cooperators; they may not want their enemies to be able to use dirty tricks, but they'd like to be able to do it themselves.

    Ah, besides. Can you imagine Congressional debate on whether to use CVS, svn, or... what am I thinking? Free software wouldn't even be on the table.

  9. This ought to be good... by symbolic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Republicans and Democrats alike pledging to crack down on influence peddling,

    Riiiight. Pardon my underwhelming response, but I seem to remember a similar effort to "crack down" on campaign finance abuse. Oh wait...that has yet to happen. And this is something else that will also probably never happen. Any elected person worth their weight in salt (literally) knows that exercising care not to bite the hand that fills the campaign trough is far more pressing than more mundane issues - like maintaining a sense of integrity. I'm filing this in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category.

    1. Re:This ought to be good... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -- George Carlin

  10. Government screwups by Slappytron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is not news. This was in Time a few years ago. Apparently there are several Pennsylvania and West Virginia coal mining companies that paid little to no taxes for 5 years by rigging up some tar spraying system over their coal cars.

    This is another example of why you cannot rely on the government to "solve" these fuel problems. They end up making bad situations worse. Take the oil crisis of the mid 70's. The government tries to solve the problem by implementing price controls instead of letting market forces take hold and lowering demand. They end up running half the stations out of business for a time and creating huge lines at the ones that do manage to stay open. I'm not a Bush fan, but he should be praised for leaving things alone after Katrina. Gas prices worked themselves out because people became concious of their consumption. Demand fell, prices fell. The Market worked.

    1. Re:Government screwups by gumbi+west · · Score: 3, Informative
      What is new is that the loop-hole disappeared b/c the price of a barrel of oil went above $50 -- so now the producers want the cap removed so they can get the money all the time.

      This cap was placed in to improve predictability. Oil was above that mark and they decided that the companies investing in this should get a subsidy if the price of oil went down. So when gas is cheap, producers get a subsidy, and when it got expensive they would have to make it on their own (it should be economic when oil is very expensive). The basic idea is to help them make it through any short term dip in oil prices.

      Now, Senator Hatches office claims that removing the cap is necessary to reduce unpredictability b/c of the fluctuating price of oil. I'm not sure I understand the logic.

    2. Re:Government screwups by danpsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is another example of why you cannot rely on the government to "solve" these fuel problems. They end up making bad situations worse. Take the oil crisis of the mid 70's. The government tries to solve the problem by implementing price controls instead of letting market forces take hold and lowering demand. They end up running half the stations out of business for a time and creating huge lines at the ones that do manage to stay open. I'm not a Bush fan, but he should be praised for leaving things alone after Katrina. Gas prices worked themselves out because people became concious of their consumption. Demand fell, prices fell. The Market worked.

      I marvel at this neo-capitalistic, liberatarian viewpoint on everything. I hear it a lot here. The market will work itself out. The market works towards a monopoly that creates barriers of entry. If government can't police the market at least a little bit, then we don't even live in a democracy anymore. Because when you vote with your dollar, your vote only counts as much as the contents of your wallet. Maybe this is an issue with the way in which government attempts to help things instead of an issue of them helping at all. Government funds a lot of research that would otherwise not happen because it is unprofitable. Just because it's bureacratic and awful doesn't mean the free market is the answer, it means we need to make it a better government.

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
  11. Whack-A-Politician by amigabill · · Score: 3, Funny

    I say we convince a congressman somewhere to sneak a small snippet into some must-pass law oen of these days. A snippet that would allow me once a year to show politicians what I think of their work by requiring each politician to allow me to smack them upside the head. And make a big shindig of it all, invite the press, hire a caterer, and of course all a tthe taxpayers' expense. This snippet of law would not allow anyone to back out of getting smacked. What a great way to spend one day a year, and it could be a heck of a party. National Politician Smacking Day, everybody gets off work to watch it on TV and everything.

    Do you think they'd start actually reading what they vote for if something like this happened a few times?

    1. Re:Whack-A-Politician by rcw-home · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmmm, that wouldn't fly in court. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment would require the law to be written so that the politicians have to allow everyone to smack them upside the head.

  12. Republicans *and* Democrats? by stomv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting how they tie the giveaway to current Republicans and Democrats and yet who is mentioned supporting the giveaway in the article?

      * Charles Grassley, Republican (IA)
      * Rick Santorum, Republican (PA)
      * Gordon Smith, Republican (OR)
      * Orrin Hatch, Republican (UT)

    Who is mentioned as being against the giveaway?

      * Lloyd Doggett, Democrat (TX)

    So maybe it's the so-called "liberal media" who is just raking the GOP over the coals. Or, maybe it's representative of trying to show the corrupt GOP Congress as being bipartisan in a weak attempt to appear "fair and balanced."

    In this case, I suspect it's the latter. YRMV.